Tag Archives: human with character & truth

“If people were employed at creating heaven on earth, everybody would be happy; instead each one is creating his own heaven by creating hell for others.”

―

Bangambiki Habyarimana

==================

“Self-interest makes some people blind, and others sharp-sighted.”

—

Francois de La Rochefoucauld

===============

Well.

As a business guy I most often view Life, government and politics, as well as business issues, thru a business lens.

It is fairly rare that I view business through a government prism.

And, yet, as I sat down to discuss self-interest and managing self-interest as a leader I found that using a governing prism was the most appropriate.

Self-interest sounds like it could be defined fairly simply because … well … it revolves around ‘self.’

Ah.

But ‘self’ depends on who is looking in the mirror as well as whatever ‘grouping of selfs’ you would like to gather up and discuss — in other words … self interest can vary depending on where you are standing.

That said … let’s discuss self-interest from a governing perceptive. Basically, self-interest can be captured in three concentric circles:

Self.

Country.

Global.

The business version could be self, group, company … or self, company, country … or … well … you get it.

Hmmmmmmm … ‘you get it.’ I do wonder if someone hasn’t worked in a larger company or even if they have but haven’t attained some management role if they ever ‘get it’ <completely at least>. Even being in management one can decide to keep their head down, under the guise of being focused n my responsibility, and just assume someone above in management is worrying about the larger picture and larger “interests” which will either benefit me or will not benefit me.

I learned this lesson early on in my management career – once I started managing a group. When I assumed the responsibility I assumed everyone would at some point do what I had done … changed companies and got new jobs. To be clear … I didn’t assume that everyone would actually do it I just assumed they would want to do it at some point. Therefore I viewed managing people and talking with people and leading the people through the full range of concentric interest circles. Simplistically, in my head, I said “I will train you and develop you so that you will be successful wherever you go from here.” my objective wasn’t just to make my group’s ‘self-interest’ a priority but rather insure that self, group, company and industry were all aligned so that the expertise and the ‘self’ could meet interests in all places at any time.

Yeah.

That created some challenges.

Yeah.

Sometimes it created some friction <because your group was always looking at other groups wondering why they did shit you didn’t do as well as it sometimes created a slightly different bar to meet than even the company itself may have demanded>.

But, yeah.

It always created the best version of each employee <and me I imagine>.

I say all that because no good leader will ever suggest it is all about one circle of self interest.

They know it is not only foolish but not true.

Meeting the need of each circle of interest is never trickle down or even trickle up … it is more often the three ‘circles of self’ in a line in which little balls are constantly weaving their way side-to-side … think maybe the eyes of the Cylons in BattleStar Galactica.

Meeting interests at all self-levels takes work. And most of us being managed or living in the everyday world are okay with that when it is explained.

But explaining it is important … and maybe HOW you explain it is even more important.

While people are mostly well-meaning <albeit in today’s world we would criticize the way Jesus put on his sandals in the morning> most of us truly do not care about the decision maker’s decision making process or even the decision maker’s fate and we certainly have no interest in putting ourselves into the decision maker’s shoes.

Yeah.

We naturally have self-interests and we weigh our own self-interests as we view the decision we will inevitably judge <prioritizing the other self interests as lower than our own but not mutually exclusive>.

You want a little of this without having to endure a little of that.

In other words … you want everything … you want to stand upon principles … you want the greater good to be served … uhm … without sacrificing anything. And, yet, we are more than willing to sacrifice some things for the greater good … economists call this “the benevolence of self-interest.”

It is too simplistic to look at people as mere ethically agnostic optimizing machines.

At the foundation of all economic theory, and behavioral theory, is the assumption that people are driven/grounded by the rational pursuit of self-interest. But, as everybody knows, people are not rational and they often act selflessly wherein things like honor, duty, love, etc. enter into the interest calculation.

When it comes to self interest, all circles that is, the evaluation does not solely reside in satisfaction of needs & wants but also in desires, purpose & welfare of others — and, yes, that includes global & country as well as individual.

I say all this because while self-interest is extraordinarily powerful it is not the end all.

And you know what?

Most of us know that in our heart of hearts.

So when a leader stands up and suggests it is all about you … and that ‘the other people’ who build initiatives and businesses which recognize the other circles of interest do not have your best interest in mind … while it sounds tasty … we know it will give us heartburn later.

Oddly enough I think of this type of false leadership as someone who is willing to put down the virtues of other people simply to bolster their own.

===============

“We’ve all started to put down the virtues of the other factions in the process of bolstering our own.

I don’t want to do that. I want to be brave, and selfless, and smart, and kind, and honest.”

–

Four <Divergent>

=============

And because I just pulled a quote from the Divergent series let me share some words in the Dauntless Manifesto:

=======

“We believe in ordinary acts of bravery, in the courage that drives one person to stand up for another.”

—-

Dauntless Manifesto <Divergent>

===========

Well.

There is a thought for any business leader to wrap their head around. No. There is a BIG thought.

In a me, me, me world <or at least it sometimes feels that way these days> … in a world where if I see something like ‘no one will stand up for you but yourself’ … or … ‘the only one you can count on is yourself’ one more time … I will … well … begin to lose a little faith in humanity … this thought is something we should all wrap our heads around. Especially someone whose responsibility it is to view the three concentric circles of interest and … well … lead people through them all.

A good leader need not be brave but they certainly must have some courage – courage to tell the truth & courage in convictions.

Therefore circles of interest may actually come down to ordinary acts of courage.

Courage as in stepping in front of criticism.

Courage as in stepping in front of ‘doing nothing.’

Courage as in stepping in and doing what is right <even if it may not be the easiest thing to do>.

Managing the circles of self-interest as a leader is an almost impossible task.

Pull one lever and another lever is released.

But I would argue, vehemently, that the leader who embraces the circles of interest in their interconnectedness inherently understands that separation is an illusion.

====

“The greatest illusion of this world is the illusion of separation.

Things you think are separate and different are actually one and the same.

We are all one people. But we live as if divided.”

————

The Last Airbender

===

While as a leader you seek to identify with the individual as unique the underlying truth is that we are all one people who simply live as if divided. And that belief is at the core of how one manages against all three concentric interest circles as you work continuously to see that employees identify their personal success with the success of the organization and the industry itself.

Anyway.

Great businesses, and countries, are multifaceted and multidimensional. I would suggest inherent in that strength are natural divides between the facets and the dimensions … and natural connections between the facets and dimensions.

Business leaders know that. And they don’t fight it but rather simply figure out a way to get all the squirrels herded in the same direction.

From the outside people may only see squirrels running around aimlessly.

From the inside you see squirrels digging up sustenance and storing it up at the nest for the benefit of the future survival and prosperity.

And it all revolves around ‘circles of self interest.’

That is the challenge every leader faces in managing a business and a larger organization. And the multiple circles make it often extremely difficult to judge leadership <because we would prefer the simplicity of judging one circle not how they all coexist>.

As Montaigne said … “truly man is a marvelously volatile, various and wavering creature: it is difficult to base a stable and uniform judgement upon him.”

A good business leader juggles the circles of self interest and sometimes it is a little volatile and almost always wavering in some way. Yet, when well done and well-articulated, it is marvelous to see and offers marvelous benefits to all circles of interest <success in one begets success in another>.

What I can unequivocally state is that any so-called leader who focuses solely on one circle <your self-interest is most often the one> is not a leader … and should not be trusted.

I admit.

I have little, if no, patience for a leader who suggests he/she will make all decisions based on self-interest, or what is best for the ‘kitchen table in every home’, and by doing so success will “trickle up” to all other circles of interest.

I have no patience because it is not only a lie but is ignorant of how things work … well … if you want enduring success that is.

I have no patience because, in their lie, they are creating a vision of heaven for you which, in reality, is a hell for all.

“Core values are the deeply ingrained principles that guide all of a company’s actions; they serve as its cultural cornerstones.”

—-

Harvard Business Review

===================

“Core values are inherent and sacrosanct; they can never be compromised, either for convenience or short-term economic gain.”

—

Collins and Porras

==================

Values.

Every person has a set of values.

Every business has a set of values.

Shit.

Every business has a manifesto of values <which someone dusts off every once in a while>.

I have written & crafted several in my professional lifetime … some I am proud of and some I am embarrassed my name is associated with it.

But what I do know, and can unequivocally state, is that you can learn a shitload about a business by their value statement <how it is written, the words they use, and what they say>.

But what I do know is that any meaningful value statement for a business has to feature two things:

Clear solid lines for behavior.

Establish character of company.

On the former I have seen some experts say “tough” and I hesitate to use that word. I personally like to say I want to establish two things with regard to behavior – “stand here <on this belief & attitude>, right here, whenever you decide to do something and never cross this solid bolded line … ever … even if it means more money, more profit, more sales.”

On the latter I rarely see experts talk about this. I personally believe how you write your values statement should give some insight with regard to the company’s culture and personality. Anyone can write ‘integrity’ but when someone writes “undeviating honesty with regard to what is the right thing to do” … or “moral excellence based on conscious efforts to do the right thing” you … well … you get a sense of conviction and personality and character.

Oh.

What else do I know?

If you do not draw some distinct boundaries around your business ‘values’, it is then left up to the discretion of the reader <employee>. And while that may sound okay in that it gives some freedom, autonomy and self-expression … well … it is not okay in that I could line 10 well intentioned employees up and ask them to define one word Values in terms of actual day-to-day business decision behavior and … uhm … I am gonna get a spectrum of responses.

What else do I know?

80% of the Fortune 100 share, and proudly share, their values publicly <even though they are hollow and stand for nothing but an attempt to meet a ‘demanded’ politically correct standard, i.e., they wouldn’t have really done it if someone hadn’t said ‘you have to do this’>.

55% of all Fortune 100 companies claim integrity is a core value <does it concern anyone that 45% do not claim integrity as a core value?>.

49% of all Fortune 100 companies claim customer satisfaction as a core value <despite the fact that is not a value but a business practice>.

40% of all Fortune 100 companies claim team-work as a core value <despite the fact teamwork is not a value>.

Look.

These are all good qualities.

But they do not establish any “things to do, or not do, behavior” guidelines.

Nor, I could argue, do they set the company apart from other compnies in any meaningful way.

In fact … I could argue that many of these kinds of things & ‘traits’ are almost cost of entry <and one should not enter a company who doesn’t have the basics like these even in the discussion>.

Beyond the fact poorly developed Values statements do not define behavior … tossing around values in a flippant fashion seeds an organization with cynicism.

But here is most possibly the toughest challenge developing a business Values ‘campfire’ … it takes a leader group with real guts.

Why?

The thing is that values have the uncomfortable & unenviable task of encouraging personal & organizational success … all the while fettering how success is achieved. Let’s call Values the reins you tug on and loosen on occasion on the organization.

Why does that matter?

Well. As Napoleon said: “success is the most convincing talker in the world.”

Success, in and of itself, is the one thread which holds together almost every organization. We can discuss purpose and we can discuss integrity but, in the end, the function of an organization is to be successful.

And success is a cat’s cradle clash of personal versus the organization

If someone’s personal employee identity is defined by the culture, the values of the culture need to be aligned not only with the personal values but also the success value … or it all gets negated, wiped out, and makes the employee feel lost, maybe isolated and, at its worst, feel less worthy as a person.

And then there is the organization itself.

Success and identity <values> clash in a fear of being cast out from the collective <either by being fired or by not fitting in>.

It is a cultural truth that humans are tribal by nature … and organizational culture feeds into that <the values are maybe the key aspect of foundational culture aspects>.

Obeying values behavior is the price to pay for staying in whatever tribe you, as an individual, have elected to join. In exchange you get to enjoy the perks, protection and personal actualization.

When discussing the importance of establishing a strong values systems and statement for an organization, one should never overlook that there can be some discomfort with a few beliefs seen as ‘semi-objectionable’ beliefs by individual employees but that will not override the desire to be part of an organizational ‘tribe’ which simultaneously meets ‘desires for success’ AND “success in a desirable way.”

In other words … someone doesn’t have to exactly agree with every single thing you say or desire in behaviors but they will suck it up as a ‘positive price to pay’ for the overall desire to fit in <in a place that they see as an overall good place>.

I have worked with gobs of businesses and this is not an easy task. Ultimately it seems like a leader sits down and struggles to delineate between “what I value in my organization” versus “a value”.

What do I mean?

The best example I could find was where one writer online walked thru this scenario:

——-

core values?

“A sense of urgency!” he replied without hesitation.

“So,” I asked, “your employees take quick action and hit all their deadlines?”

“No,” he replied, “they’re complacent as hell, which is why we need to make urgency one of our core values.”

——

Any leader worth a shit has aspirations for the business they will lead beyond simple dollars & cents. But they seem to get confused between specific behaviors which will contribute to the accumulation of the actual dollars & cents and the … well … the value accumulated within the dollars and cents.

That may sound weird <because when you report profits & revenue most people just look at the bottom line>.

But it is not weird.

Because at the end of the day an organization inevitably will judge the dollars & cents by how they were achieved … and if the organizational values are embedded within each of the dollars and each of the cents they will not only judge themselves well but each of those dollars and each of those cents will not just be money but also pride & satisfaction.

If the money attained, and I mean every cent, does not embody the organizational values then the organization itself starts doubting the value of the Values.

=== a final academic note on values & value systems ======

I noted earlier in this piece that defining values and value systems aligned with individual beliefs and organizational desires is difficult. The following outlines an academic breakdown of classes of values systems:

Indications for understanding of value systems:

It would seem useful to distinguish sets of value functions. It is also useful to attempt to distinguish for each case between: a positive interpretation (p); a negative interpretation (n); a paradoxical negative interpretation of the positive (pn); and a paradoxical positive interpretation of the negative (np):

Class I: Efforts at recognizing ‘the’ one fundamental underlying value governing human society, readily labeled by different constituencies as ‘love’, ‘profit’, ‘peace’, ‘justice’, etc according to orientation (p). This then tends to be used in an overly simplistic or fanatical manner resulting in a form of behavioural blackhole (pn). These value terms are however readily deconstructed into a referential void that is characteristic of this class and the (entropic) pull that it exerts on the constructions of other classes (n). Such seemingly ‘negative’ aspects of this function are also recognized in references to existential despair, alienation and emptiness (n) — which is valued in spiritual disciplines for the perspective (np) that it gives (‘dark night of the soul’, ‘ego death’, etc) and its mysterious relationship as a catalyst or matrix for the creativity of Class IV (Nishitani, 1982).

Class II: Value sets as assiduously elaborated by international constituencies in an effort to achieve universal consensus on a framework for action and governance (p). Such sets are also characteristic of religious dogma (eg sets of virtues). They may be viewed as essential to society for the reasons well argued by their advocates. They can also be viewed with suspicion as straitjackets on that very development of value sensitivity and diversity which ensures their relevance to living systems (pn). From a Class III perspective, such value sets are quite claustrophobic and inappropriate to a learning environment, to the point of being associated with outmoded patterns of dominance (n). Such sets may thus be seen as continuously decaying into Class I in the mindsets of the disabused and alienated. But it is precisely their ‘outdated’, predictable, dependable, disciplined quality which constitutes a vital complement (np) to the chaotic and evanescent value experiments of Class III, providing the stability through which Class IV can emerge.

Class III: Value systems created by individuals and groups to frame and enhance their particular, and often private, experience (p). The freedom and experimental quality of such value creation reflects the views of social constructionists and an appreciation of diversity. Not necessarily viewed as (to be) widely held, permanent, coherent, or systematic. They are essentially unstable and unaccountable (pn) and may be quickly abandoned (through a decay process into Class I) although they may undergo a form of reification (into dogma) into Class II, possibly accompanied by some form of institutionalization. Some, notably those advocating Class II frameworks, severely question and condemn the social incoherence and irresponsibility of such value relativism where ‘anything goes’ (n). It is however precisely in their role as an evanescent, exploratory complement (np) to Class II that Class III creates a dynamic environment through which Class IV can emerge.

Class IV: Emerging, surprising, new value patterns reflecting new degrees of sensitivity, coherence and fundamental groundedness as a source of inspiration (p) that contrast with those of Class II. In contrast to the chaos of Class III, these carry a recognizable quality of stability and integrity (failing which they decay into Class III, or directly into Class I). They tend however to attract a pathological enthusiasm, in a manner somewhat analogous to Class I, as offering ‘the secret elixir’ by comparison with the perceived irrelevance of other classes (pn). Through a form of value narcissism, they distract from the vital functions of other classes (n). They can be confused with more familiar values in other classes through a failure to recognize their originality and as such run the danger of being coopted under the frameworks of those other classes. It perhaps precisely in this manner that the new strengths renew the values in the other classes (np).

< Note: I apologize in that I lost the source for this but please note I cannot take credit for this extensive insightful analysis of value systems >

“If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”

————

Thomas Paine

==========

Ok.

………….. a Trump headache ………..

I have tried to get off the attention whore Trump train of the endless travels of lack of leadership behavior … but he continues to dominate news <I envision this will now be the case for the next 4 years>.

In addition … despite the fact every Trump surrogate, as well as Trump himself, wants to shrug off the election itself and simply land on “he won, get over it” … the Trump topic remains rumbling in every office, gym and bar. The gloaters and the disappointed and the concerned continue to clash and Trump <and his surrogates> continues to ignore that fact.

Me?

I continue to be baffled by his incredible lack of leadership skills.

Day after day I can come home with a simple “why didn’t he just do or say this?” thought which any leader who has led an organization with an eye toward building an employee culture <rather than an autocratic dynasty culture> knows.

I offer two thoughts today.

Hero status.

I actually did some research on the Bannon guy who seems to be some type of Trump whisperer and oddly I found the kernel of what I was seeking in what I believe was his first documentary which was on Reagan <and trust me on this … while I am not a huge Reagan fan I do not believe Trump is even in the same positive stratosphere as Reagan>.

It was there that “hero” seemed to be offered as a theme. In a cold dark world in which everything evil is attacking what America stands for and does we needed a hero … a Captain America as it were … to stand up and not only lead but bear the shield and hammer to defend it all.

Well.

That certainly appears to be the mantle Trump is seeking to drape over his own shoulders. While I would imagine ‘emperor’ would be an attractive title to him, if someone were to suggest to him “you are Captain America” I can only imagine that nasty smile that sometimes appears on his face to appear and say “I like it.”

Two things about this hero mantle Trump appears to be positioning himself for:

Americans like heroes.

But we like a slightly different type of hero. We like heroes who are not squeaky clean. We like flawed heroes. We like heroes who have a glimpse of the dark, a touch of black in our white knight. We even hesitate with burnished armor but like the slightly used

We like our heroes a little dirty.

Well.

That is what Trump wants to offer and is happily, with some obvious delight, suggesting he is THE hero we need.

Heroes need a clear, stark, black-souled enemy <and I do not mean African Americans in this black mention>.

In a Reagan world it was communism <or Russia>.

But the specific enemy is less important as long as there are no shades of gray.

It must be black and white so a white knight can be offered.

It must be sinners and saints so the flawed Saint can smote the sinner.

It demons and angels so a fallen angel can find redemption by facing the demon we all fear.

And, in Bannon’s case, it is the devil versus a Christian God <I personally believe Trump could care less about his specific distinction other than it offers him a very specific Hero role>.

Globalists. The Media. The elite. The intellectuals. The Muslims. The ever nebulous ‘establishment.’

Pick your enemy. As long as there is an enemy the Hero has someone to fight <for us>.

Transactional branding.

In the business and marketing world there are a variety of ways to attain a brand status … one is transactional. It is focusing on each transaction as a building block which places, piece by piece, the mosaic of that which is your brand. To be clear … this only works if you have an architectural schematic in which you are placing your building blocks. If you do not have that then … well ,,, they simply become random pieces scattered around the lot in which you are trying to build and whatever is created is unsteady and not a particularly attractive building from a distance.

Regardless.

A hero falls into this concept very easily … particularly if that hero is a non thinker and a doer like Trump. In this case the Hero is the one who faces a specific challenge from the enemy, faces it and overcomes it and holds the prize up high in victory only to place it as a building block on the structure the hero is demanded to defend and build.

Heroes are transactional. Heroes are doers. In heroic sagas the vision is defined, the sides are clearly established and the Hero steps forward to insure ‘what is right’ wins versus ‘what is wrong.’

Uhm.

Yikes.

While I just thought of those words and just typed them … they echo with the taint of Trump’s delivery.

Anyway.

This leads me to the kitchen table.

I actually had a great, and enlightening, discussion with a couple of Trump voters.

Once I stripped away the anti-Clinton hyperbole there were real kitchen table issues and problems they were seeking Trump to resolve. They were personal, and real, issues that were holding them back from reaching a potential they believed would be within their grasp if the obstacles were removed … uhm … if the enemies were slayed.

They admitted their knight was flawed … but they saw their knight as someone who is going to kill some enemies. And, frankly, if you believe you are in a shithole you are willing to place your ‘change the situation’ responsibility on even a risky knight. In other words, through their self-interest lens they would seek someone who understood self-interest motivations.

While I didn’t specifically reference ‘the kitchen table’ back in May I did note that Trump would play very very well in this scenario:

====

But Trump is good at this … he appears tough with regard to self-interest because … well … he has been successful himself focused on self-interest.

“I’m willing to pay for it. I want to see my country winning again. Trump is a winner. And I’m sick of losing.”

======

Whew <I needed to take a breath for a moment>.

Here is the problem with what I just shared <part 1> … the fact so many people believe we re actually in such a deep shithole we actually need a hero like Trump.

Here is the problem with what I just shared <part 2> … well … that is beyond the overall disturbing ‘hero mentality in a constructed us, or Me, versus them world’ … there are real enemies and then there are REAL enemies.

As a small business person sits at a kitchen table at night they face a day to day transactional enemy which can very easily be placed into the arms of some larger ‘branded’ enemy construct to blame <some evil entity created my day to day problem>. It is a specific transactional problem, and a real one I may add, which someone in a leadership position <a hero> needs to solve for me.

They are real enemies to the everyday schmuck like me.

And then there are REAL enemies … the ones who challenge my country’s position in the world. The ones who can attack not my transactional problems but rather my architectural schematic. Those are the REAL enemies.

I have said it before and I will say it again and again <and again> … being a leader does not permit you to think solely transactionally nor does it permit you to sit at every kitchen table and solve each real enemy they visit on a day to day business. I cannot remember where and when I wrote this <and I made up the numbers> but even on my best day and my best decision … in a 400 employee company I could almost guarantee at least 40 people would actually be hurt in some way by it … maybe another 40 felt no real benefit … and a large % of the rest would either slightly benefit or see some tangible benefit. And, yet, 1 year later everyone was still employed and most likely bearing some benefits unforeseen back when the decision was made.

I cannot imagine making a decision for 320 million people.

Suffice it to say … some kitchen tables will always not be happy. Suffice it to say that sometimes a leader sacrifices a building block to maintain the integrity of the architectural schematic to be built from.

I can honestly say, and from experience, this is the kind of shit that keeps a leader up at night and gives you gray hair.

In the end.

I continue to state to whomever will listen … Trump is not a leader. He has never led an organization and created a an organizational culture. He slays problems in a transactional way and believes you build pride & culture by slaying shit. That is but one part of a culture. Because wins, and slaying problems, is absolutely an important aspect of a positive business culture. But that only works as long as you have something to slay. You learn very very quickly that a purpose driven self expression culture is a much more positive business culture than a culture driven solely by an ‘us versus them’ aggressive driven culture.

To be clear.

What Trump is doing, setting aside the naïve leadership tactics and heinous wording, has value in an organization.

As a leader I would see some value in selected tactics if he were working for me. I would use him in selective ways to attain selective objectives <and maybe Pence will do so>.

I would not make him a leader … I would have him work FOR me and use him as a tool in my toolkit to move toward a horizon I envision for my organization.

And maybe that is where I personally struggle with our new President elect.

I can only really envision him as an employee … and not my leader.

Ok.

I will admit that the first time I thought that thought it felt arrogant and I shelved it.

But then as time went on I shared it with some business peers and … well … it seemed to be a consensus feeling. Setting aside some characteristics <mostly his “I in team” attitude> we all felt he could be used as ‘a guided missile type employee’ where you could point him in a direction, maybe on occasion have to say “no Donald, we cannot do that … but we can do this” and an organization could benefit. Uhm. But none of us could envision working for him.

He doesn’t feel like a leader and he certainly doesn’t feel like a leader of a large employee type organization.

He is transactional.

He is a doer.

He is not a visionary, he has no objectives <other than a nebulous ‘make america great’> and he has no clue how to build an organizational culture.

Anyway.

……………….. Trump celebrating after winning election …..

I wrote this back in May of this year, Trump celebrates imminent nomination, and … well … I am not sure I would change one word with regard to Mr. president-elect Trump who shows no signs of acting like a president.

I have come to accept I am destined to have a president who does not know how to be an effective leader nor understands the impact of words.

It is a bitter pill to swallow mostly because I demand better of any leader let alone the president of my own country.

I do not foresee Armageddon … just a lot of transactional activity. I only hope there is an architect somewhere near to whisper in his ear <other than this Bannon guy>.

There is not a duplicate of you in the whole wide world; there never has been, there never will be. You were brought here now to fill a certain need.

Take time to consider what it might be.”

–

Lou Austin

======

Well.

I do this … and I do this all the time. And I don’t like it when I recognize I do it.

Clumping people together in some generalization.

But we do it all the time.

And, boy oh boy, we are certainly doing it with regard to Trump followers.

Assuming someone who doesn’t have ‘an education’ is stupid.

All old white men vote the same way is stupid.

Women will never vote for a sexist old white man is a stupid thought.

All of these are … well … stupid & wrong.

And while I am a generations guy <meaning that I believe a larger generation cohort takes on some attitudes because of it contextual place in history and the past generations impact upon them> that does not mean I do not believe individuals have their own brain and their own beliefs/opinions. They may cluster on occasion but day in and day out most people wake up, do their own thing and make up their own minds.

In addition.

We may not like what someone thinks but most people are not sheep blindly following the herd. That doesn’t mean we don’t all selectively make ‘sheep-like’ decisions.

In fact.

I would suggest that all of us, yes, all of us take on some sheep aspects in Life. We do so because in those particular things we are comfortable with an idea and are comfortable with the others in our cluster. People outside of our ‘herd’ simplistically point fingers and unequivocally state “sheep.”

Silly.

And stupid.

I’m sick of blanket statements about men and women, or any group, by supposedly intelligent people.

All it really achieves is to depersonalize the individual and lump everyone into broad categories which, frankly, many people frequently don’t fit into.

Some people in broad groups are this way, others aren’t. Period. End of story.

Now.

That said.

There is a psychology of crowds. But the funny thing is that most crowds are driven by … uh oh … self. As in ‘self-interest.’

If you have ever studied attitudes & behaviors of people or even dabbled in marketing in any way you will have explored the psychology of crowds and its relationship to individuality & self interest.

Suffice it to say … crowds are tricky things.

You can gather a crowd through emotion or gather a crowd through reason.

And I have had this debate many times with people.

One view, not mine, is to gather a crowd … any way you can … because once you have a crowd you can communicate with them. Manage them through emotion and connect with them rationally.

The other view, mine, is if you gather a crowd with reason they are likeminded rationally and therefore more receptive to the emotional message you may offer.

One tries to convert emotion to rational. The other tries to convert rational to emotional. Yeah. I am being very simplistic and there are degrees within what I just wrote. But let’s keep it simple for the sake of this discussion.

The emotional play is powerful … but built on a weird combination of vaguery and tangible. The vaguery is in some intangible ‘better than what currently is’ <even if what is resides somewhere at the bottom of some shithole and I am offering something still within the shithole … just not the bottom> and the tangible is almost always found in the past … like … “get the US back to what it was before.”

Inevitably emotion is a combination of anger at what is and desire for what was to become what will be.

The true vaguery resides in the … well … how.

How is it possible to go back?

How is it possible to revert all that has happened?

How is it possible to be what I was before when I know so much more now?

“I love the old days, you know?

There’s a guy, totally disruptive, throwing punches. We’re not allowed to punch back any more.”

But his vaguery is always couched in the ultimate solution to any person in a desperate situation – “I will do whatever it takes. I am willing to destroy anything to create a win.”

He needs no detail in his mind because he simply suggests everything & anything is on the table.

And that not only stirs up the crowd <who doesn’t like the sound of ‘destroy to create’?> but most of all … the rhetoric maintains a strong self-interest tone.

In other words … “do anything because what do I have to lose … the status quo ain’t giving me shit now.” <in fact … just like this bombastic guy is telling me … I am in a frickin’ shithole>.

In the end … the rhetoric implies sweeping change. Not better change for the average schmuck, just change.

Now.

I say all this because <circling back to the beginning> far too often we clump people together in some fantastical grouping and ignore the foundational aspects of why they are willing to behave the way they are behaving. Because no matter what kind of anger everyone wants to point out ad nausea … the reality is that this is all about self-interest.

Let me explain using the diagram above.

At the foundation of what weakTrump exudes is aggressive definitions of ‘the shithole we are in’ leading to almost a fever pitch of blaming, finger pointing and anger.

He has no ideology except a promise of something better than the shithole he is claiming everyone is in.

While I laugh in horror at this bizarre spectacle I admire his grasp of psychology … “if I can convince you that you are dying of thirst even muddy bacteria driven water is a ‘win’”.

He convinces every one to believe in the deepest shithole <disaster state> he can define which increases our belief radical change is necessary and that inevitably affects how much risk we assess … and if he has done his job well … by the time we make our ‘self-interest decision’ we are somewhere on the bad side of the spectrum of “what the hell … what do I have to lose?”

Please note. To win the election all he needs to do is create a universe of 51% of voting population somewhere, anywhere, on the left hand side of the spectrum. Correspondingly, to beat Trump someone has to convince 51% of the voting population they reside somewhere on the right hand side “less of a shithole to no shithole” spectrum.

But weakTrump is good at this … he appears tough with regard to self-interest because … well … he has been successful himself focused on self-interest.

Therefore many people, who may believe they have nothing to lose today feel like it is in THEIR best self-interest to take the risk with the only person who is willing to do whatever it takes to get out of the shithole.

Or as one Trump supporter said:

“I’m willing to pay for it. I want to see my country winning again. Trump is a winner. And I’m sick of losing.”

Look.

In 2014 something like 63% of the American people didn’t vote. 80% of young people didn’t vote.

In 2016 over 50% of the American people feel like either America is in the shithole, sliding into the shithole or teetering on the edge of sliding into the shithole. This makes his message pretty powerful. If people, driven by self-interest, are paying attention they will be compelled to consider voting … and voting for weakTrump.

If you wanna beat weakTrump it will take a two pronged effort.

First is attacking his mysterious plans to get America out of the shithole he apparently feels the country is in. The more risky he sounds the more likely some people will be to think long & hard about whether we, and the person thinking specifically, are truly in that deep a shithole.

Second is attacking the concept of ‘the shithole.’ I am certainly not suggesting some optimistic rosy ‘everything is great’ message … but someone needs to rationally explain that America is not in a crisis, not a disaster and certainly not in the shithole. I think of this like America is a high performing 8 cylinder engine that is not running smoothly at the moment. But I am still an 8 cylinder engine and I still haven’t stopped running and I still haven’t exploded sitting on the side of the road unrepairable.

Anyway.

To any of the politics blowhards out there … I hope you read this or Trump is gonna frickin’ kick your ass in November and I am going to be stuck with that asshat as my president.

“Don’t lose touch of reality, it might drive you insane if you’re locked in your own world of possibilities for too long.”

—

Unknown

====

Ok.

This is part business and part social media culture thinking and … well … simply reflecting upon what is happening in the world with regard to how we think about things and how our thoughts are influenced.

The world as it exists within social media is different than the real world. What I mean by that is while we pontificate on some massively interconnected world … it is far more likely you are part of a 10 million twitter following … and that is more often than not is your world.

If you are part of a 5 million blog feed following … that is more often than not your world.

This may sound counter to what everyone suggests about the role of media in influencing people. The truth is that the concept of ‘mainstream media’ <which, in my eyes, is being so poorly discussed and labeled similar to how political correctness has become the go-to phrase of the day> has difficulty penetrating an established social world.

Tidbits get filtered in and then bounce around this parallel universe in which the facts create new constellations that the real world cannot see, do not see, when they look up at the sky. Inevitably all these tidbits feed on itself and only grow stronger and stronger the longer they exist within the world ultimately helping to share real tenets, beliefs, rites and established norms

The trouble is that, in this social world, thoughts and untruths and truths echo as equal opportunity informers.

This begets a real world truth … and a parallel world truth. Sometimes they can be the same, sometimes just similar … and sometimes a parallel truth which, well, as parallel suggests … travels a lane that never intersects with the real world truth.

Some of us older folk and maybe some real world truth tellers gnash our teeth and pound the tables and imagine if we yell loud enough, or calmly tell the truth in maybe a different way <the ‘go-to’ thought by older folk is ‘be visual … it is a short attention span world’>, that somehow we can communicate the business truth or the Life truth or real world truth … or whatever real truth which will impact the alternate world we are frustrated with.

Well.

That is a slightly ignorant and totally egotistical view.

Whether we like it or not an alternate world is a real world in and of itself. It may not actually be a reflection of real truth or overall reality per se … but that alternative world captures the reality of that ‘follower world.’

And that world takes on the same characteristics of any traditional civilization and culture. Ethics, values, norms, dreams, despairs and hopes.

Some idiots call it a ‘tribe.’

I call it idiotic because it sells the world in which this social following lives short.

Tribe is too small. The social world, and the online communities which is created in these different followings, are like small civilizations which may, or may not, interconnect with other cultural views & values, religious views & values and societal views & values.

Others may attempt to call this ‘countries’ … heck … Facebook is the largest country in the world. And, in some cases, this may actually be the correct metaphor … but in more cases it is not. Countries coexist. Worlds are … well … worlds apart.

And entering into one of the larger follower social world groupings is absolutely like a world apart. Within the following are individuals who have come together based on a world view in which they do not see anywhere than in this virtual population <which are real people in a made up world>.

What I can promise you is that what each alternate world DOES coalesce around is like minded individual self-interest – views & values & aspirations.

And it is easy to see how his could happen.

It is incredibly easy to feel powerless in the real world but in this new world all you feel is … well … power. Power to feel what you believe and do <at least virtually at the moment> what you want to do.

It is incredibly easy to feel one person can do so little and now, all of a sudden, the individual finds themselves in a world together with individuals who think the way they do, say the words they say and want to do the same things they do. The world exists only in a virtual sense <and they now that> and, yet, they can envision this world being created as a tangible reality.

And, lastly, it is incredibly easy to block out all the noise trying to infringe upon the beautiful sounds echoing in this virtual world.

Look at whatever news or information sharing research you want but the majority of people seek one main source for their information. If that is true <which it is> than once you have decided to become part of a social follower world … that becomes your main feed of information, truth and reality. And once you have decided to become part of this following … it becomes your world … and then it becomes obvious <at least to me> you now have a world mainly of likeminded people cocooning thoughts, norms, cultural beliefs, civilization characteristics … and desires, despairs and hopes.

Anyway.

While I like to wax philosophically I am a business guy … and I like to offer solutions.

sigh.

I do not have a solution on how to penetrate these alternative worlds <assuming you want to>.

But I imagine if I were to do so I wouldn’t barrage them with facts or pontificate about my world view <because it is counter to their world view so why would I care> but rather I would assess their world, and their world view, and figure out a way to appeal to some aspect.

And I would definitely better understand the core of this alternate world view … the self-interest.

Because in the end , while this is a sweeping generalization, the main way to connect with someone quickly is to do something or say something that appeals to … well … “me.”

That may sound like a selfish world view but it really isn’t. It isn’t as cold & harsh as “what’s in it for me?” as the foundation for all attitudes & behaviors but rather it is a nuanced world view of individual survival within a larger world view. Think about it. If I see other worlds around me crumbling or spinning out of control in its orbit I see those worlds as a threat to my interests and ultimately my survival. Therefore I am going to want to be part of a world in which an orbit is established, a global climate of prosperity & fairness <however that world may establish it> & … well … my world view survival is insured.

I say that because “what’s in it for me?” sounds too small for what I view in this alternate world this group of individuals are seeking … as we try and view their individual self-interest motivations.

To penetrate this word in any meaningful way we need to appeal to some sense of self … and offer a new world view in which the individual decides to … well … find a different world to live in.

By the way.

Parts of what I am sharing today pain me.

It pains me because a significant thread of what I am suggesting is grounded upon two thoughts that go against everything I believe in: <1> a large group of people do not desire to be fully enlightened <or are okay knowing what they know and want to invest energy doing other things>, and <2> I am recognizing that the individual has more power to create ‘worlds’ than societal needs.

Neither of these are incredibly bad in a larger view … it is simply an acceptance I have acquiesced to the greater need – that there are worlds apart from the real world which need to be brought back into the real world.

That said.

Instead of calling people stupid or suggesting they are ‘unenlightened’ in some way or ‘they just don’t understand what I am trying to sell them is good for them’ … maybe it would be more productive to begin our own thought process by recognizing these are worlds in which they are happy, seemingly productive and hopeful. In their world they are not missing things … they have things.

These are worlds of their own making and maybe we should think that people do not build worlds based off of fear or anger or despair … they build based on hope & dreams & beliefs.

Think about that last thought before you start spouting off about “tapping into anger” or “driven by disappointment.” Things are not built from anger and disappointment … things are built by hands seeking a house for the future.

“Just as we teach our children how to ride a bike, we need to teach them how to navigate social media and make the right moves that will help them.

The physical world is similar to the virtual world in many cases. It’s about being aware. We can prevent many debacles if we’re educated.”

——

Amy Jo Martin

–

========

–

“99.5 percent of the people that walk around and say they are a social media expert or guru are clowns.

We are going to live through a devastating social media bubble.”

——

Gary Vaynerchuk

============

Ok.

There is structuralism … there is social structure … there can be structure holes … but if I google Social media structuralist … I get zilch, nada, nothing.

I have created a title and job.

And it is mine.

Let me explain me as a “social media structuralist.”

As a curious 50something social media is exciting, challenging and daunting … personally and professionally. In the professional world of communications if I hear one more person suggest “you need to reinvent yourself” to be a successful 50something in today’s professional world I am going to shoot myself.

Conceptually I understand it, and buy it, but conceptually it also suggests that everything I have learned and know is useless.

I refuse, and refused, to believe I had suddenly become a blithering idiot simply because the world wide web offered a zillion new ways to connect with people.

In my own stubborn way I have dabbled in social media but not immersed myself in the technical aspects nor have I become a user experience expert <although I have written and consulted on it> nor have I studied social media strategy <although I have written and consulted on it>.

And in my own stubbornness I have increasingly found myself becoming a … well … structuralist.

By the way … I am not sure there is actually a career in this nor is it a way to make a living but it simply represents what I am often asked to do and help with.

As a structuralist I seem to always be surrounded by gobs of people <mostly significantly younger … with an occasional older person posing as a social media expert … and sounding silly> all with more knowledge about the social media universe and social media tracking and social media … well … everything social … and, yet, for some reason at some point the discussion always seems to swing around to me where I end up scribbling one of my infamously bad hand written diagrams on some cool board <which seem to follow social media experts around wherever they congregate> to show some structure core aspect to the entire discussion.

This seems to … well … build structure to the idea and the thinking.

I will admit … it is almost always contains ‘content’ in the center. But I am not a content specialist … I am more a communications, connecting & behavior generalist … aw … what the heck – I am a social media structuralist.

Now.

This is different than social media architects <mostly because apparently that is a real existing job>. Social media architects don’t just create a social media system. They must also manage the system effectively.

I certainly do not claim to know social media well enough to create a system architecture. Nor would I be an expert at managing the system.

But what I find is that many of the experts understand tactics and specific feature management … but don’t really understand how to manage benefits and create communications structure <so all the pieces and parts don’t go flying off into the ether at some point>.

They need structure. And I don’t mean rules and responsibilities or even tracking … it is more along the lines of helping them understand building the core foundation of the structure which permits them the freedom to be creative in what is an incredibly fast shifting creative space. I find myself helping young people <or other ‘social media experts’> who know significantly more than I do about social media build a ‘home structure’ from which they leave tactically <and strategically if they are good> and yet always come home to <even when in their freedom they fell flat on their face>.

And what they find is that … well … two things:

<1> because they have left a home they like and are comfortable with … even if they fail … there is always place to go home to and the world has not crumbled <that is a metaphor that suggests the entire program doesn’t fall apart … just a piece>, and

<2> when they leave the home structure they are finding that incorporating a piece of the home structure in everything they do increases overall effectiveness and strengthens the piece they created as well as the home structure.

Now.

The other thing as a structuralist I find myself talking about is tracking and success.

Inevitably there are gobs of dashboards and incredibly cool graphs and, of course, so much data your head would explode.

———

“When I hear people debate the ROI of social media?

It makes me remember why so many business fail.

Most businesses are not playing the marathon. They’re playing the sprint.

They’re not worried about lifetime value and retention. They’re worried about short-term goals.”

===

Gary Vaynerchuk

———–

As a structuralist, and a guy who has found using metaphors as a successful way to permit people to envision the business challenge, I talk about the social media structure in terms of … well … our favorite structure – the home.

– Who do I want to bring into MY home?

– What would I want them to see when they walk in?

– Do I leave my front door unlocked?

– Do I lock the bedroom door and only give keys to those who I want an intimate relationship with?

– Who do I let rummage through all my memories in the attic?

You get it.

And, lo and behold, they get it.

And who gets it the most? … the business owners and leaders themselves.

And then, of course, you get stuck talking about ‘how do you know it is working <or is it all ‘fluff’>?’

I am not a huge tracking and metrics guy. I admit it.

I love to learn about what works and what doesn’t work … but getting your underwear all tied in a knot because I only got 5 ‘hits’ today or my monthly website traffic is down <or up> seems silly <and a waste of worrying energy>.

But … I have found if you put a high ‘quality filter’ on what you do and how you view what you do than you can judge success not on the quantity but rather the quality of your efforts and success.

There is a guy named Jeremiah Owyang who developed a hierarchy of metrics attempting to show how the metrics for social media and serving various stakeholders can live together in a program.Owyang proposes distinguishing different, but related, metrics for different layers in an organization:

– Business metrics, for executives (and ‘everyone else who supports them’), summarizing the social media analytics

– Social media analytics, for the managers and employees who are strongly engaged in social media, focusing on how social media impacts business

– Engagement data, for community managers and communications agencies, measuring the social footprint in detail (e.g. in clicks, followers, likes, retweets, views, etc.).

If I were stuck with someone who demanded some type of metrics and measurement tracking this is most likely where I would begin talking thru what we needed to track <and let someone else who knew how to do it better than I design how we would do it>.

Social media structuralist.

I doubt I can pay the bills being whatever this is … but … I like the fact I remained stubborn with regard to what I know as still having some value … and yet embraced my love for social media.

‘To prosper soundly in business, you must satisfy not only your customers, but you must lay yourself out to satisfy also the men who make your product and the men who sell it.’

=

Harry Bassett

—

–

“We are all manufacturers – making good, making trouble or making excuses. “

=

HV Adolt

=====

–

‘It’s hard to know who to trust and what is real.’

=

Marc Burrows

————————–

Well.

This morning I got absorbed in a story about a young social media entrepreneur who is now rejecting social media as ‘real.’

This is fascinating to me because while one minute she was using a social media platform to create income the next minute she is using a social media platform to create … well … I don’t know what yet <and I am not sure she does yet either … although … I will suggest if she does it well … it will also generate revenue>.

But here is what hasn’t changed – she is is still an influencer or a manufacturer.

Yup.

In today’s world if you are involved on any social platform … well … you are a manufacturer. You manufacture opinions, information, facts <or quasi-facts> and ultimately some influence in that you have made someone think about something.

For businesses … well … to prosper in today’s business you pretty much have to satisfy everyone … not just customers or employees or manufacturers … but everyone.

Pretty much anyone … at least the people with a tumblr, facebook, twitter, pinterest, etc., account … can be major influencer these days.

Please note that I added in the word ‘major.’

I did so because the internet has simply amplified what already existed. While in the past I could have sat at the corner of a bar pontificating <and possibly influencing> a small group of people … today I can write blog posts and pontificate without having to speak any louder <and possibly influence a larger group of people>.

I don’t think that is an epiphany.

Shit.

I know for certain marketing companies are espousing the effectiveness of influencer marketing versus traditional tactics.

This thing called ‘Influencer Marketing’ is getting discussed as an expertise more and more.

Why?

Beyond simple common sense … a recent McKinsey study stated that marketing inspired word-of-mouth messaging generates more than 2X the sales of paid ads, and these same customers have a 37% higher retention rate.

But influencing is much more than ‘people endorsing what I have to sell & tell people’.

In the past, the way you showed that you cared was through physically doing something or being actively involved.

Today you can prove passion through virtual activity. And you can manufacture influence based on how well you prove this passion <through words, pictures or sheer artistic communication>.
This means that as soon as you become involved on any social network you have become an unpaid advertising writer or photographer on a vast platform.

But here is the tricky part.

You can actually also manufacture your own demise.

Yeah.

Sometimes social media seems to be a social Darwinism experiment.

While we all have the right to free speech — that’s what America is built on — you actually run into some free speech challenges on Twitter or Facebook or any social network.

Alll you have to do is to offer one divisive/inane/innocuous/ thoughtless/indifferent remark and you pretty much can be assured you will not land your dream job, maybe find yourself losing that college acceptance … or find yourself fired … or find out that you are now manufacturing hate <against you> versus manufacturing progress.

It is kind of crazy that one small voice can wreak such havoc in one’s life.

It seems almost counterintuitive that in a world where people have so many diversions, demands and distractions where it’s getting harder and harder to “capture people’s attention” the web can amplify one person’s voice to a point that our attention is still captured.

Influencing, or being an influencer, actually moves beyond simple attention … it incorporates some feeling of connection, or disconnection, to be truly effective.

At the end of the day, people will forget what you said, forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.

The fundamentals of marketing, and, frankly, influencing remains the same.

If you have an insight you can … well … influence ‘the swarm.’

Technology has enabled amplification.

===

Google computer scientist in India:

… while some of our projects improved lives, most had little long-term impact.

When I looked back at our 40-odd projects, what I saw was that it wasn’t the technology that decided whether the outcomes were good or bad, it was us and our partners. When we were committed and worked with capable partners, our technology augmented their impact. But when we had corrupt or inept collaborators, the technology aggravated the dysfunction.

In other words, technology doesn’t add a fixed benefit.

Instead, it amplifies underlying human forces.

Amplification is a simple idea, but it’s powerful.

===

Let me spend a minute on this swarm thing because influencing is all about motivating, or inspiring, swarm like behavior.

In the animal world, a swarm <think a school of fish>, is a well-coordinated group that moves in sync and can change direction abruptly and uniformly.

Signals for how to behave are rapidly communicated among swarm members.

Remarkably, they do this without a leader. They act “independently as one.”

Social networks are natural swarm creators … communities can be formed overnight and people connect and communicate with each other rapidly and effectively.

And this swarm actually is created outside traditional institutional boundaries being shaped by diminished trust in ‘the institution’ therefore relying on an instigator … or an influencer.

By the way … swarms cannot be led … only influenced. It is not an audience in a traditional behavioral sense and the swarm isn’t looking to some random institution for guidance but instead people are influencing & shaping one another’s views on a vast online platform.

An influencer connects in some way to a swarm and then they either run to you or away from you.

This is where marketers start fucking things up.

In their ‘I want to build a formula for success’ they start trying to build fences to manage the swarm.

They do so with methodologies and ‘tried & true ways to build and manage a swarm.”

It is crazy.

If you believe in this swarm thing than you cannot believe in ‘leading’ or ‘creating.’

You either simply accept influencing or you don’t.

You can’t just say “do this” to a swarm you simply create connections points that engage and get people involved. There is no formula for this and, in fact, I would argue that you can, and should, do it in a variety of voices and messages.

Because if you stay in one voice … well … you become a ‘bot.’

The best example I have of this is the whole underground comment influencer business … or ‘trolls’ as we like to call them.

The most famous is Russia’s “influencer group” which apparently has a whole team of say maybe 200 ‘professional commenters <influencers> who spend entire days following articles and writing preset comments underneath the articles.

Putinbots have no convictions, they don’t have their own opinions, they are not even pro-Kremlin. They just tasked with a very particular job.

And then marketers go a little bit farther in screwing it up by following what some trend people suggest … there is an ‘influencer economy’ driven by the intersection of social media and the always traditional important ‘word-of-mouth and personal recommendations’ <always rated highest as influencing purchase decisions>.

I think the trend people are nuts.

It’s kind of like suggesting you can ‘be authentic.’ You can ‘be authentic’ you either are or you aren’t.

You either influence or you don’t.

You either say something meaningful and connects or you don’t.

The moment you become an economy you become … well … a paid endorser <not an influencer per se>.

To me … as long as this becomes some ‘planned activity’ I can almost guarantee that over 50% of what is attempted will fail because … well … it is forced and not natural.

===

“Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can’t, and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it.”

–

Robert Frost

===

Suffice it to say that for marketers, this growing Influencer Economy presents challenges and opportunities … and just some truly maddening inconsistencies.

The biggest challenge with institutionalizing influencing is that marketers want to control & nudge & … well … influence directly so they can see direct results.

And, yet, tapping into the everyday influencer is actually a less direct with a mediated connection relationship and … well … influencing is influencing … not leading.

The second large issue with institutionalizing is that many marketers strive to make their content more “snack-able” and “share-worthy” with the intent to increase the odds that an influencer will be more likely to forward/share the information.

But that is wrong.

Really wrong.

Interesting information is interesting information and a good influencer will parse out what they want and how they want.

Influencing is NOT about managing some idealized intentions … it is about sharing thoughts. And then those thoughts get naturally amplified if and when there is some connection to a swarm.

Sure … understanding what is in the head of the consumer can guide you toward an answer as to how to market to them … but … it is “an answer?” … only ‘an answer’ … not THE answer.

There’s no easy formula to gaining attention, creating some connection and ultimately influencing. It can’t be done with some formulaic attitude but rather be nurtured with patience.

We are in exciting times.

Stupidity and blinding smartness have equal opportunity to be amplified.

We are more global, social, visual and technological and are the most connected, educated and sophisticated generation ever. The young, in particular, have influence beyond their years. They are educationally transformed – moving past structural and linear learning – and they are socially defined, connected to and shaped by their peers. They are the early adopters, the brand influencers, the social media drivers, the pop-culture leaders and … maybe most importantly … the opinion leaders. They create the future.

Here is where I do believe some marketers are getting is whole influencer thing right … trying to understand what makes an influencer a good influencer. <I lost the source for this>

– Charisma

Whether they are writing or talking about data visualization or european cheeses, influential people have the ability to convey a certain type of charisma that appeals to their audience. An audience is generally respective to charisma because its closely tied to a sense of confidence and command.

That charisma could be something as simple as self-deprecating humor or a tremendous grasp of their subject matter or being a contrarian <speaks common sense truth> or embodies a desired status quo status.

– Engaged and engaging

Influencers are … well … interested. Interested in their community, their topic, the sharing of information, providing opinions, thoughts and insights.

The best influencers have an open dialogue with their community, understanding that responding to questions and criticism builds the trust that creates long term value.

– Consistency

At the end of the day, everyone has a certain amount of influence among their network.

But translating that influence into a brand or a business requires consistency.

And of course, consistency enables an influencer to leverage that one metric that creates business value: conversions.

If an influencer is consistent in their output, they drive a higher number of their community members to convert on calls to action

Look.

The internet and social channels have certainly affected social culture, influencing, attitude management, marketing … and … well … pretty much anything.

And, of course, we want to try and manage that affect.

This reflects great intention … but most typically bad attempts.

From a business marketing perspective … budgets are a precious asset, placing a lot of stress on how effectively and efficiently the dollars are used. Looking beyond traditional marketing tools for more impactful results, companies, and their brands, are seeking other innovative ways to connect personally and persuasively with their target end users. More and more companies certainly see the value in communicating through highly credible thought leaders and other people with existing relationships to these potential end users as a way to significantly influence the purchase decision. Some people call it creating a “buzz.”

I personally believe it is a way to create dialogue about your brand rather than simply having a monologue <which television really is> in which your brand is involved.

Is there some risk in actively engaging an influencer? Sure.

You have to be confident in your brand offering and your company. But as long as you are true to who you are what people will say about you will be true.

In fact … I always find it amusing when I can use an old thought in this ‘world we have never face before’ attitude to make a point: “A great ad campaign will make a bad product fail faster. It will get more people to know it’s bad.”
Bill Bernbach said this in the 1950’s.

Look.

Institutionalizing influence runs a fine line between nuts and tricky. We all manufacture influence but as soon as we take ourselves too seriously we tend to lose … well … influence.

Influence to be effective has to be natural and that is why I tend to lean toward content and not he person. Great content well-articulated with character tends to gather swarms who swarm around it and think about it and ultimately I tend to believe it influences the mind <which influences behavior>.

The web naturally amplifies things that connect – bad things as well as good things. but amplified or not … everyone involved on a social channel is a manufacturer of influence.

“There’s no bigger sucker than a gullible marketer convinced he’s missing a trend.”

–

Bob Hoffman

——-

Ok.

I will admit.

This topic makes my head hurt. When older established brands & companies decide to concede everything they have earned up to this point to “re-invent” themselves with the intent to become ‘relevant again.’

To be clear on what I am talking about ….

Heritage brands.

These are products and services that have been with us for a while. They may not have grey at the temples but suffice it to say they have some history.

Clean slate brands.

Just born. Being shaped day by day <and oddly many are being initially offered to people in the market with as much ‘heritage’ type credibility crammed into it as possible with the objective of gaining some credibility that you can only shake your head>.

Before I begin on the main topic <heritage brands should embrace their heritage and quit trying to be like the young whipper snappers> I will point out that there is a very odd relationship between heritage and new <or clean slate>.

The new fresh ‘unique’ <don’t they all seem to come out from day one suggesting that no one has ever seen the likes of what they offer?> inevitably are doing one of two things:

– Injecting a core ‘history’ piece into their gestalt.

Kind of like a ‘here is one component or thing which you know and love’ just so you know it will not ….

o <a> fall apart

o <b> not work with anything else you may already own

o <c> be credible in some form or fashion

– Leveraging from some ‘history.’

Kind of like ‘I know my shit because I did this and worked here but now I have seen the light and …’

On the other hand.

Heritage brands are constantly trying to inject some false youth into their brand with the intent to suggest they are not … well … old.

Unfortunately the years suggest otherwise.

Fortunately they are just years.

Old, or age, at least with a brand … is about attitude & in the mind. Or at least it can be.

An old product is certainly just an old product.

But a constantly fine tuned contemporary old product is not old … just from an older wiser company.
Well.

I began there because I think heritage brands should take a page out of that clean slate playbook.

Far too many of the older brands are simply conceding … throwing out what they have as old <unsalvageable> … and trying to use their operational marketing savvy to reenter the market as a ‘clean slate’ brand.

Silly. Maybe even absurd thinking.

Ok.

Seriously.

Here are a couple issues with attempting this:

—-

– their savvy is savvy … but most likely savviness on & from a wide array of existing attributes & attitudes & perceptions. This savviness is very very different than trying to create something from scratch

—-

– old dogs are very hesitant to learn new tricks <’nuff said on this>.

===

With that said.

While difficult to reimage or reenergize a heritage brand … conceding to a clean slate brand is wrong, silly and impractical.

I say this all the while watching what seems to be a massive shift in power taking place in the business world.

There is a whole new onslaught of new brands creating their own rules trying to attract people <buyers> to their unproven and unknown brands the way they were attracted to established brands in the past.

In fact it almost seems like ‘established’ is a swear word if not just another word for ‘tired & old’ if not tainted.

But the future should not, and does not, belong to these clean slate brands.

Regardless.
And to kick their ass you have to embrace the concept of re-imaging <not reinventing>.

And reimaging or revitalizing companies and brands really centers on the tried & true marketing and business objective – ‘finding relevance.’

The relevance in this case is about resurrecting dormant attributes in an existing company/brand that still have some appeal <just need to be dusted off and shined up a bit> and resurrecting things that are dormant in the collective consumer conscience.

Some people may call what I am discussing as re-imaging <I know I have in the past>.

And re-imaging is an appropriate term because reimaging is NOT about re-inventing an organization but rather assembling characteristics or attributes and then repackaging them, or highlighting something, to make people look at the organization <or brand> in a different way.

The simple truth is that successful re-imaging typically resides in the past.

Gathering up characteristics that made that company successful in the past and simply reminding the internal company and the external constituents all the reasons why that organization was “liked” in the first place.

Another truth is that sometimes re-imaging is simply a process of “clarity”, i.e., insuring that people clearly understand what the organization does, believes and stands for.

This may seem simplistic or irrelevant but I often find, particularly with B2B focused, organizations focus so much on customer service and features & benefits to differentiate themselves they have lost sight of the value of a higher order positioning in creating value and distinctness.

Now.

Here is the hard part to wrap your head around <to many business people today>.

This ends up being about believing that success often resides somewhere in the past.
<insert a loud DOH! Here>

This is all about something old and something new <and being relevant in the marketplace>.

Think about it.

Sales are flagging and I am an old brand/company and how do I look new?!?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Sound familiar?

Most of the time it because the brand has simply lost relevance in consumers’ minds <it has nothing to do with being cool or uncool>.

But they can be re-imaged <and not concede to a clean slate approach>.

I do have some examples.

Maybe the best example I can think of is Adidas in the United States.

Huge popular brand in US years ago.

Dropped off the face of the earth in the American consciousness <especially as Nike and Reebok stepped up>.

Then someone stepped in and made them relevant again <part old school positioning and part ‘new relevant’ status>.

Smart.

VW?

Did the same.
And maybe the second best example.
IBM.

Whew.

Someone really stepped up to the plate on this one. Someone fought the battle that “big blue ain’t that bad that we should throw it under the bus” <and I bet that was a tough discussion> and then threw in some nice human characteristics <some tongue in cheek relevant humor> and all of a sudden IBM <which had one foot in the grave perceptionwise> became relevant all over again.

They didn’t throw away all their old characteristics <in fact they kind of suggested that an aspect of their oldness was good> and simply started adding on relevant “todaylike” characteristics.

But please note.

The list of failed ‘re-imaging’ initiatives is extensive.
Resurrecting, or renovating, a brand to revitalize it in the marketplace and make it relevant again is a tricky path.

It isn’t easy.

Because it is just easy to look old.

Or worse … look old trying to be cool <think the middle aged crisis guy who is almost laughably sad to look at>.

I am not sure if business people are lazy, scared or simply dazzled by the newest shiniest object.

I do know for sure that I often find that people spend so much time trying to find something ‘new and revolutionary’ and they overlook something older that just needs to be pulled off the shelf and shined up a bit.

Whatever the reason for the brand fading away or disappearing or losing its relevance <blame mergers, globalization, mismanagement, stagnant thinking, poor strategic repositioning, or whatever> not conceding to clean slate brands should be the main path forward <or at least the first path considered>.

Why?

Imagine the gazillions you could save by not having to create instant name recognition amongst tens of millions of skeptical twenty, thirty or forty-somethings.

Imagine not having to play an entire season of ‘away games’ where you are constantly walking onto their field with their rules.

So.
In the end re-imaging doesn’t mean new perceptions cannot be ‘attached’ to existing attributes it simply means that it is:

—–

(1) Easier if the desired image/identity is leveraged from something existing (think heritage again), and

—–

(2) More believable to internal & external audiences if as many existing perceptions/attitudes are utilized as possible (so old is good here too).

—–

And to be clear.

It takes a disciplined process <or let’s say it helps a lot> which effectively recognizes and identifies dormant-like meaningful characteristics.

And it also takes people who are in tune to uncovering insights using the ‘resurrected’ factoid findings <because many people just focus on the new shiny objects>.

And, lastly, success is dependent upon knowing how to use those insights to make the brand relevant and increase sales.
Candidly …. not everyone in business has or can do all three of these things I just outlined.
This whole thought process, and practical process, is not really that easy <or maybe better said it is easy to do this badly>.

Not many can meet the challenge to resurrect something old with reverence and apply it with relevance.
Anyway.

Three thoughts to end this article.

1. People often forget that success often resides somewhere in your past <if you look hard enough>.

It is all about pushing off from some past strength and leaping forward in a relevant way.

Anyone who doesn’t want to looks backwards at all <the infamous “that information is dated” comment> will not understand or benefit from this approach.

I believe companies with some heritage and strong values provide a strong platform for success.

Some people consider being old as having baggage, I do not; I believe that represents a competitive advantage.

2. I love reimaging.
I love this strategic approach.

It’s like putting a puzzle together using a lot of existing pieces but at the end having it look slightly different than it did when it was put together previously. It is simply showing people what was already there but helping them look at it differently. Plus (frankly). It is always easier to edit then create.

Reimaging is all about identifying meaningful distinctive existing characteristics & attributes with the intent to develop a relevant positioning which creates a desirable image to some specific target audience.

3. Wisdom.

While I could go on and on about re-imaging brands, revitalizing brands and re energizing them <an invariably having to re energize the organization offering it> it really comes down to one thing.

Selling wisdom.

If you concede the wisdom ground as a heritage brand you will lose.

Well.

Maybe you are just lost.

So.

If you are a heritage brand … do NOT concede ground to clean slate brands.
Do not play their game.

I imagine you can certainly try. But a building suggests a solid unmoving construct … kind of like maybe a shopping mall or a bank branch <oops … not particularly positive examples, huh?>.

And therein lies the underlying absurdity.

The construct. The unmoving unchanging body.

And a suggestion of ‘evenness.’

To be fair <before I begin my constructive enlightening rant> … the foundational aim for any brand has been and remains the same as always … to express singularities which consistently distinguish the offering of products and services.

And within these singularities … or distinctness … people will seek values, leadership, assurance, clarity … and personality <or character>. Maybe better said … some promise a person can attach some value <not values> to.

I say all that because you invariably need to grow your brand … well … unevenly. Yup. Sorry. A brand isn’t, probably shouldn’t be and most likely cannot be <and be successful> ‘even.’ Smooth. Without any ragged edges.

It needs to be grown unevenly <which is actually a natural growth rather than some manufactured growth>.

Uhm.

Just like a child.

You bring up the best kid you can. Build a strong character. Encourage them to embrace their potential. Put them in the best possible situations to succeed.

And, well, you let go of them and let them go into the world.

They’ll make their own friends <some you would not have chosen and some you would have> and they’ll do things that will make you want to tear your hair out over … and at other times they will make you beam with pride.

But unless you are some control freak nutcase … you are not by their side telling them what to do and how to dress and what to not do every minute of the day.
They assume a personality of their own doing what you hope is the right thing because you brought them up right.

This is just like growing a brand.

And if you do it right people will gladly welcome you into their circle of acquaintances <and sometimes friends> and give you the prime brain space every marketer is so desperate to get hold of.

All that said.

In theory, philosophically, a lot of marketing experts, or normal non expert people, will nod their heads when they read this and sigh <sagely of course> “that is so.”

Uhm.
But.

In practice?

In practice they will freak out over this idea.
Not control the brand?

Not build it so perfectly and then protect the perfection that is the brand <on paper at least>?

Bottom line.
They will freak.

And they will become maniacal brand control freaks.

They do so even though most marketing people know that a brand isn’t a package or a logo.
They recognize it is more like a living breathing personality.

But too often these same experts get trapped in the nice even edges found in a ‘brand symbol’ <think a logo or a package> and they want to try and control how the symbol connects to miscellaneous thoughts, emotions and information stored in the human brain.

Unfortunately … since everyone’s brain is wired differently … we see and feel different things.

Someone may see a bottle of Coca-Cola and think of ‘the real thing’ and someone else may think ‘happiness’ and another may think empty calories <add in something else on this list>.

Look.

We’re not sure exactly how or where the human brain makes the connections that make branding possible.
We may never find out.

But one thing we know is the brain craves simplicity … uhm … and also complexity.

Uh oh.

Simplicity and complexity?

That sounds so … well … uneven.

Yup.
Therein lies the beauty & power of unevenness.

Regardless.
Before I get to the complex … let’s talk the simplicity part of the equation.

You do have to focus … and gain some simplicity in terms of a tight ‘core’ … from which the brand character resides on <some will call this the platform>.

There are some basics to get the ball rolling on the uneven path to growing a great brand:

———-

Whatever one may wish to call the experience, there are certain basic concepts to take into consideration:

—

Two fundamental elements:

straightforward presentation of the experience

honesty of thought, word and deed as regards the company

—

Three keynotes:

corporate conscience,

shared story-building

participatory and open co-creation processes

—

Four roots in reality:

Although many people may be involved in what is a completely open process, it is the company which creates the intent and is in control.

Even when a story is built, we must at all times remember that success is always enjoyed by those who are backed by great products and/or services.

It is about values and the consistency with which the promise made by the company is built.

Cristian Saracco

————

Please note the simplicity begins with the organization itself <whew … and when is that ever simple?>.

Beyond the actual product & service the organization has to be the natural <please note the word natural> origin for the products & services.
What do I mean?

Well.

The product or service has to ‘look right’ coming from the organization.
Maybe call it the ‘eye test’ <boy … that sounds non-technical and uncomplicated doesn’t it?>.

And getting this part of the brand right matters.

It matters because frankly … it needs to stand out <please note that I suggested the brand stand out … not the marketing or advertising>.

This part of the brand needs to be distinct because in a complex sometimes overwhelming abundance of choices available to us 24/7 … some simpleness will stand out.

Well.

Maybe not simpleness … but the consistency of character <combined with function of course>.

<note: and maybe one of the issues in discussing brands and branding these days is that we confuse simplicity & consistency? … just a thought>
Look.

Consistency matters because the world has become more … well … less consistent.

In 1998 the average U.S. office worker received more than 160 messages a day via e-mail, fax, voice mail and conventional mail.

Today the number has almost quadrupled.

Enter a supermarket and you are most often faced with over 37,000 different products with distinct SKU’s <stock-keeping units> compared to 8,000 in 1970.

Orange juice choices have gone from 20 to 70 in the past 30 years. Coke 6 to 25. Even Philadelphia Cream Cheese has gone from 3 to 30.

Choices abound.

And some good choices I may add.

A company’s temptation may be to create even more brands to compete in this crazy world of choices.
On a side note about that last thought <about choices and ‘selections’>:

———

As we approached the 21st century, consumer and industrial suppliers acknowledged this overload. Unilever, a leading manufacturer of consumer health and beauty products, announced a 5-year plan to slash its brand portfolio from 1,600 to 100. A carefully orchestrated effort was put into place to ensure no loss of market share, while “helping” the consumer by eliminating so many choices. Unilever has been successful in its efforts. The program resulted in significantly lower costs in manufacturing, distribution and promotion . . . and ultimately, greater profitability.

———-

Anyway.
Growing a brand means it has to fulfill a clear promise. Promises are simple and complex. But suffice it to say, in this case, you make a promise and deliver upon it.
Simple as that.

Here are some basic steps simplify <or at least clarify> some things that make up the foundation blocks for growing the brand unevenly:

——

– company assessment

The first step in growing a brand is to assess the brand ‘parent.’ There are several methods for obtaining this information from the end-users but suffice it to say that if you don’t know your company <culture, belief system, aspirations> you will never rear your brand properly.

—

– research

Whether you think you need it … do some research.

Research will not only provide qualitative information from key stakeholders, including internal and external customers and influencers, but also flesh out the raw concept that resides in the vision.

The number of interviews <participants in research> will vary according to the typical number of end-users that would have an opinion about your company’s image.

The total number of potential end-users may be very small in b2b compared to a consumer product such as toothpaste.

Regardless.

You are seeking some consistent feedback … you hear the same feedback over and over.

The information collected from the survey is the foundation on which your brand platform will be established. You may find that once all the results are summarized, the information is very much in-sync with your organization’s internal perception of itself.

—

<note: don’t fool yourself into believing the exercise was a waste of time or a worthwhile effort in this situation … it is not only a sanity check but it also alleviates a lot of second guessing at a later date and plays a significant role in aligning everyone on what matters>

—

Research can be used for a variety objectives <value of offering, validation of offerings, etc.> but at minimum use research to best articulate your ‘reason for being’ as a business. this information is like placing the pebble in your hand so that you can drop the right pebble into the middle of the pond. The wrong pebble in the wrong dropping zone and … well … you get the picture.

—

– competitive audit

You are going to be who, and whatever, you are. Studying the competition shouldn’t change that.

However … by auditing and assessing the competition you can better asses how to best articulate who you are and what you are in ways that insure some distinctness.

It is essential to provide a clear differentiated <or distinct> message.

And any value in efforts to growing a strong brand will be lost if you haven’t given people a compelling reason to buy the product.

—

– identifying the key brand elements

There are several elements that need to be defined in the branding process.

This is the process of establishing both the tangible and intangible attributes to make the brand distinct.

Think of the most basic platform elements as:

—

1. Vision or Mission Statement

The vision statement may be called the core belief while the brand promise may be entitled the brand essence. The vision expresses the philosophy driving the organization.

It unites the internal team to a common path. It is a clear sense of destination.

—

2. Core Identity Concepts <character>

The organization’s core identity … the company character statement.

The core identity captures the set of association, and values, the organization wants to create and maintain. The core identity should be easy to communicate and consistent for all products.

The core identity, while very personal, should take into consideration:

– Understanding of customer needs

– Integrity and honesty in doing business

– Passion to meet and exceed standards and expectations

—

3. Brand Promise

Simply stated it is what the customer gets from your brand. The promise distills the broad ideas of the platform without losing meaning. The promise drives the value proposition and provides differentiation that can last. The brand promise is sometimes also referred to as the brand essence.

—

4. Value Proposition

This represents the functional and emotional benefits customers expect to receive by working with the branded company. The proposition reflects a balance between the aspirations and reality of what the brand is able to deliver.

The functional benefit is the real world outcome of choosing and using the brand.

The emotional benefit is the ability of a brand to make a user feel something.

—

5. The Truth line

This is a line, or phrase, which can be used in all marketing and promotion materials.

It should clearly describe “the business” that the brand is in. It is a descriptor of the brand. This may be one of the most difficult elements of the platform to identify. The effort to try to “boil down” all aspects of your company’s product or service offerings into a simple phrase is not easy.

—

6. Brand Story

An organization doesn’t have to be famous to have an interesting brand story.

This legend of how the brand got started is used to preserve and enhance a brand’s heritage.

It can provide inspiration and motivation for customers, employees and stakeholders. This story can be used anywhere at any time because … well … it is a story. And people like good stories. I say that because this isn’t a technical manual but rather a personal story of the brand.

——

Ok.

Those are the basics with regard to the simplicity aspect of growing an uneven brand.

By the way.

Please note that all brand platforms begin internally.
Not externally.

Call it ‘inside out thinking to insure success.’

I am not suggesting completely ignoring the external <market opportunities, customers, attitudes & perceptions> but I am suggesting that a brand exists in the soul of the company <just as in the desires and souls of parents with a child> … and not in the soul of some external constituent.
The outside constituent may define the value of your soul or assess whether it has some meaning … but a brand platform is … well … a platform.

A foundation.Something steadier than some whims of a moving mass of irrational people.

Ok.

That was the simple part of a brand.

Which leads me to the close … which is about unevenness.

And the fact a great brand grows unevenly.

Just like people.

And then there is the complex side of what a human brain likes.

The unevenness that makes brand interesting and … well … human.

Even imperfect in some ways.
I will admit.

I cannot write a lot about the uneven complex dynamics of growing a brand because … well … its unplanned.

It just happens.

As this brand you have nurtured is allowed to leave its home and go out into the world it begins interacting with different brands, different people and different situations. Each of those interactions creates some context in which the brand evolves and adapts.
As it happens you can choose to adapt … or not adapt.

All I can tell you for sure is that the brand you envisioned will grow up to be something not exactly what you envisioned.

That is a truth <that not many branding experts will tell you>.

But you know what?

I am not the same person I was when my ‘brand’ first stepped out of the home. I would like to believe that I some ways I am now a better ‘brand’ for all the experiences and Life I have encountered.
A business should take the same view with regard to brands.

Anyway.
Suffice it to say the the power of letting a brand grow unevenly is that it makes the brand … well … human … and interesting.

This matters because the challenge is that minds are like real estate in that space is limited and we can’t let every brand have a place to stay.

Unevenness improves chances of gaining brain space and making a connection – a brain and brand connection – that will truly inspire something other than a ‘price’ relationship.

Growing a brand unevenly.

Not for the faint of heart. But certainly has its rewards.
It must relate in human terms to human beings.

Because a brand that doesn’t appeal on basic human levels really has no hope of success in today’s marketplace.
Don’t expect this journey to be easy.

Just as rearing a child with its slight haphazardness … a brand takes some discipline, a strategy that moves from simple to complex and a combination of rational and emotional.
But, in the end, if you grow it right … you will have reared a simple human with character & truth and the power to touch people … oh … and some unevenness.

An uneven brand is interesting. It has some character. And it will be stronger n adulthood after running the gauntlet of growing pain youth.

My thoughts on this topic were inspired by a trendwatching’s briefing called “The F-Factor.”

Their briefing (another excellent one by the way) discusses how the impact of influencers’ on purchasing has increased because of the web (and the dynamics associated with the web).

By the way. Trendwatching has another excellent briefing called Crowd Clout from about 2007 or so which makes essentially the same point.

I am going to try and put my spin on their insights by talking a little about the past (the evolution of this whole influencer explosion) and the future (how it is creating a new economic model).

Let me begin by saying despite the advent of “social media & social marketing” that consumer decision-making has always been personal and social.

The truth is that consumer decision-making has always been about seeking feedback, leaning on what friends say and seeking ‘influencers’ thoughts … all of which influence the ultimate purpose.

This was true even before the media (or people seeking to create some ‘buzz’) added the word “social” to the marketing world. Yes. Even the marketing dinosaurs knew decision making ultimately had a significant social aspect.

What do I mean?

People talked amongst themselves.

People talked to their neighbors about home services.

People talked to relatives or friends about more personal decisions.

People reached out to trusted advisers (doctors for medical, veterinarians for pet stuff, dermatologists for skin stuff … well … you get the picture).

People talked and discussed.

In fact The Economist just did a great article on how Martin Luther built the entire Protestant faith off of ‘buzz.’

(boy … that is social media working at levels they could typically only dream of these days)

The difficulty we face in the current “what is buzzworthy” world we live in today is that it wasn’t called social back then therefore we seem to struggle in finding ‘successful past case studies’ (or at least ones that someone will pay attention to). In the “old” days … people simply sought out ‘experts’ (I use the term loosely … let’s assume the definition here is “someone who probably knows more than I do and can inform my decision making process”) to make a better decision.

Before social media you could always count on the following two factoids with regard to who influenced a purchase the most.

“Who do you speak with about making a purchase?”

1. Family.

1a. Friends.

(you could flipflop or call it a tie pretty much all the time)

But something HAS changed.

The internet has changed our worldview on friends (and influencers).

“Our definition of friends has changed because of Facebook, and Twitter, where quantity as opposed to quality is now almost a mantra”.

Rick Murray, President, Digital Edelman Digitas

Well.

I don’t know that I totally agree with Rick from Digitas.

Oddly while social networks do increase quantity research has shown three key things (to indicate that quality is tagging along with the quantity characteristic):

1. A Pew Internet research study shows that internet has actually strengthened and expanded existing social roles of churches and fraternal organizations.

Therefore the quantity has simply strengthened existing quality.

2. the same research showed that more frequent communications via text actually ENCOURAGES the desire to spend more face-to face time

3. the research also shows that texting requires more careful crafting than a telephone or face-to-face communications and 3 out of 10 teens say “that they are more honest with friends when they talk online” therefore quality is the underlying foundation among all this “random quantity” discussion.

Next.

And while we often talk about how internet is influencing people we need to be careful with the ‘influencing’ word.

Research shows that the web can assist in education but ultimately the final influencer remains one and the same as the past.

The most tangible example I have at my fingertips of this notion is the most recent 2011 NPD Group Aftermarket Consumer Outlook Study:

Q: “Where would you go to learn how to do repairs on your vehicle?”

– Friend/Family 57%

=

– Vehicle Repair Manual 46%

=

– Mechanic 42%

=

– Internet 42%

=

– Store Personnel 16% (yikes)

Basically a Mechanic is AS influential as the Internet in this decision.

One word thought here. Wow.

So.

The main point here is that a consumer now has access and is aware of more people (true friends as well as web based friends) and can have more frequent communication due to the digital revolution. Yet. Social media is simply the fact that the traditional benefits of an acquaintance network (personal or professional) and friendships can be more expansively realized than before.

The other truth is that products today are at the mercy of crowds of friends.

Crowds providing unsolicited feedback and influencing hordes of consumers making decisions on a daily basis.

Yes.

This is the “F-Factor:”

It is the expanding scenario of consumers increasingly tapping into their networks of friends, fans, and followers to discover, discuss and purchase goods and services, in ever-more sophisticated ways. (source: trendwatching.com)

The F-Factor is a real part of people’s lives because it provides real value. Value in that it offers a purchase decision making opportunity that is more efficient, more relevant, and more interesting and provides more “depth/breadth” than before. In the past consumers either had to spend endless time and effort on trying to discover the best of the best, or had to rely on sources that were distant, unknown or untrusted, and therefore potentially unreliable or irrelevant.

Now the six degrees of separation (at least in the influencer world) has shrunk significantly to a “no degree of separation” influencer world (this entire phenomena is inherently changing the trust value equation).

So.

Trendwatching does a nice job of identifying five ways that the F-FACTOR can influence consumer-buying behavior:

1.F-DISCOVERY: How consumers discover new products and services by relying on their social networks (Friends).

2.F-RATED: How consumers will increasingly (and automatically) receive targeted ratings, recommendations and reviews from their social networks. (by the way … this is creating an entirely new industry of something called ‘curated consumption’ where non-experts become distributors of expert like information).

3.F-FEEDBACK: How consumers can ask their friends and followers to improve and validate their buying decisions.

4.F-TOGETHER: How shopping is becoming increasingly social, even when consumers and their peers are not physically together. (in other words, the web permits consumers to share real time information and feedback and opportunities … and this is like a pebble in a pond syndrome where relevance & interest creates ripples difficult to quantify when it works).

5.F-ME: How consumers’ social networks are literally turned into products and services (curated consumption at its best).

This is one of those situations where the internet has unequivocally changed the dimensions of existing attitudes & behaviors. Simplistically the web has put the old F-Factor on steroids. I say it that way to point out that the web has not created anything new (attitude wise) but rather has encouraged a desired behavior to new boundaries.

The internet has also expanded an interesting existing consumer aspect to this entire “influencer” situation.

It is expanding the entire trend of putting consumers to work (whether they recognize it or not).

Think about his for a second.

This trend existed before the web. The easiest early example of this was in the fast food industry. For example the consumer of the fast food restaurant is also to some degree an actual producer of the meal.

Among other things, diners are expected to serve as their own waiters carrying their meals to their tables or back to their cars, sandwich makers (by adding fixings like tomatoes, lettuce, and onions in some chains), salad makers (by creating their own salads at the salad bar), and bus persons (by disposing of their own debris after the meal is finished).

This trend has actually existed for quite some time.

Putting consumers to work gained momentum with companies/brands after the birth of the fast food restaurant and has expanded to other industries:

– Being a gas attendant by pumping your own gas

– Serving as a bank teller at the ATM machine

– Working as the checkout cashier at the supermarket by scanning one’s own food, bagging it, and paying for it by credit card

– Being a ticketing agent by using electronic kiosks to check in at the airport

– Serving as an entertainment guide by co-creating a variety of experiences such as moving oneself through Disney World and its attractions

And now the web has enabled brands (or is it consumer empowerment like everyone suggests) to put consumers to work in a wide range of sometimes subtle and less material ways (this is where the F Factor truly comes into play).

Once again.

Think about that.

Much of what happens (and is created) online is generated by the user. Today’s web experience is often being defined by users producing content (individually as well as collaboratively). It wasn’t that way in the beginning when most of what existed on the original web was provider-generated but lately there has been an explosion of “consumers doing the work.”

Some examples of how the internet is putting consumers to work:

– Wikipedia – where users generate articles and continually edit, update, and comment on them

– Facebook, MySpace, and other social networking websites – where users create profiles composed of videos, photos, and text, interact with one another, and build communities

– Second Life – where users create the characters, communities, and the entire virtual environment

– Amazon – where consumers do all the work involved in ordering products and write the reviews. (in addition users’ buying habits and site navigation are documented to recommend products)

– Yelp! – where users create an online city guide by ranking, reviewing and discussing various locations and activities in their area

– The GeoWeb, which consists of online maps where, increasingly, users are creating and augmenting content with Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo tools. In fact. Google Maps users can fix errors; add the locations of businesses; upload photos; link Wikipedia articles to, and blog about their experiences with, or reviews of, places on the map.

And that’s not all.

Start thinking about the new “location awareness” tools, often used in conjunction with ‘smart’ cell phones with GPS technology, which allow users to track where they are at any given moment and upload this information to websites such as Facebook, Twitter or one’s blog (Google Latitude, Yahoo’s Fire Eagle and Loopt mobile phone application).

Sure.

This type of consumer involvement in consumption was certainly not invented by the internet, but given the massive involvement in popular online sites, it can be argued that it is currently both the most prevalent location of this new type of consumption (consumer) purchase model … and it is certainly the most important facilitator as a means of consumption.

Bottom line.

It can be argued that the web is influencing an entirely new consumption model.

A new economic model (as I so succinctly suggested upfront).

This leads me to my big finish.

Friends, feedback and influencers is bigger than simply the web or how brands can compete in this transparent world (where putting consumers to work doesn’t mean they are an employee).

The F Factor is impacting America & capitalism (forget about the whole brand and branding discussion … this is much bigger than that).

Capitalism itself will be transformed, perhaps radically, in this F-Factor world we live in. Several thoughts lead me to this conclusion.

First.

The inability of companies (brands) to control consumers in the way, and to the extent, that they have been able to control consumers in the past. Due to increased transparency there is a greater resistance to the incursions of obvious capitalism (e.g. efforts to gain greater control and greater profits).

This does not bode well for the companies dabbling in Facebook & twitter & social marketing who are doing so with the intent to “influence or guide purchase behavior.”

Second.

It is difficult to think of today’s consumer, mentally & attitudinally, as being exploited in the same ways as before. The whole idea of exploitation is contradicted by, among other things, the fact that today’s consumers seem to enjoy, even love, their involvement and what they are doing and are willing to devote long hours to it … for no pay.

Third.

The emergence of a whole new economic model to conduct business because of the internet. Traditional capitalism is dependent on the notion of the exchange of money for goods and services and profits are made in those exchanges.

However, little or no money changes hands between the users and the owners of many websites (for instance, users do not pay Facebook or Twitter to use the services).

For one thing there is the unwillingness of corporations and other organizations to pay for work done by these new web based influencers. This is compounded by the fact the new consumer increasingly prefer, and are able, to pay little or nothing for that which they consume on the internet (news, blogs, social networking sites, and so on).

Think about this as part of a new economic model.

Friends … family … influencers … or extended employees?

Yikes.

That will raise some hackles.

Yeah. Think about it.

What I have outlined is contrary to what Humphreys & Grayson (2009) argued that when corporations are involved this type of consumerism is simply the creation of “temporary employees” and thus does not indicate a fundamental change in capitalism.

Obviously … I disagree … I contend that entire business models based around these new consumer types (the so called “temporary employees”) who are unpaid and given the product for free indicates the possibility of a new form of capitalism.

Now.

If you are a business and you are reading this, think about the implications.

All these “friends” providing feedback (unasked for or asked for) and influencing gazillions of attitudes (which generate some type of behavior) are your employees (paid or not).

They are your associates.

They are an extension of all those people who come in every morning, drink your own bad coffee and use the internet inappropriately during business hours in your office.

When you look at them that way would you choose to treat them differently?

Do things differently?

Think about your “social media” plans differently?

Even sit down with strategic planning and think about your business model differently?

I will help out here.

The answer to all of those questions should be “yes.”

The web is a powerful powerful facilitator of influence & business.

You may elect to call it “friends & feedback quantity” architecture but I suggest if you want to be successful you think about it as a “quality” mechanism which can impact a new economic model.

Intimidating? Possibly.

But if you don’t think of it that way you will probably influence no one and end up on the slippery slope of irrelevance (with no friends).